Re: why not have https for all sites
- From: "Ray Taylor" <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 21:15:08 +1200
I dont know all the exact details, but https is a very complicated system.
As far as i know, it takes a lot of extra server processing power because of
encryption, and digital certificates have to be purchased for the server
which not everyone can afford.
Also, many media rich sites use plugins such as flash and java and can
conflict with the permissions of those plugins to run in secure modes
compared to a more relaxed open mode on the clients computer.
For these reasons, https is really only used for isp control panels, and
internet banking etc where auctual losses can be made by someone
intercepting your connection with the secure site you are visiting.
I mean why go and purchase extra server processing power, a certificate and
all the rest when you are only trying to give a site with advice on looking
after cats.
<scott_doyland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157036485.484501.77380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
Ive just set myself up with wireless access at home to the internet and
also decided to read a bit on public wireless AP's
It seems that https is very secure when using a public AP.
So why arent all sites just setup to use https, wouldnt that then take
away the possibility of people sniffing any data sent.
I know you'd still have to have other measures like a firewall to stop
people trying to access your laptop.
Regards,
Scott
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: why not have https for all sites
- From: Bill Kearney
- Re: why not have https for all sites
- Prev by Date: Re: Monitor staff location
- Next by Date: Linksys WAG54G ethernet ports only working when switched to 10Mb/Half Duplex
- Previous by thread: Re: 3000 foot wireless card
- Next by thread: Re: why not have https for all sites
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
